After months of hoping and waiting, a vaccine for COVID-19 is about to arrive in Australia. A handful of Australians are expected to have received their first Pfizer jab by the end of February.

The logistical challenges of vaccinating millions is not the only problem the Australian Government will face in coming months. Law makers and employers must also decide whether the COVID vaccine will be mandatory.

 

Can the government make vaccines mandatory?

The Federal Government does have legal grounds to make vaccines mandatory for all Australians, provided it is proven safe and effective. Australians would have little room to protest such a mandate under the Federal Biosecurity Act, which provides penalties for breaching Orders.

While Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, claimed the vaccine would be “as mandatory as you can possibly make it” in August, he later rescinded his comment and claimed it would be “encouraged.”

Vaccination could become a precondition for receiving government-funded services such as aged care, education and even border protection conditions. Like the “no job, no play” policy introduced in NSW in 2017, parents who do not vaccinate their children may be unable to enrol for childcare, or access family tax benefit payments and subsidies. Details of such a policy remain unconfirmed.

Whether Australians will be required to get the COVID vaccine as a prerequisite to travel will be determined imminently.

Can employers make vaccines mandatory?

Contracts of employment require employees to obey the lawful and reasonable directions of their employer. However, in such an unprecedented time, what is deemed “lawful and reasonable” is increasingly ambiguous. It can also vary between workplaces.

For example, it would probably be considered lawful and reasonable to require a childcare or aged care worker to get vaccinated. Some jurisdictions may even pass legislation to require employees in health and care sectors to be vaccinated with the COVID jab.

 

If you would like to discuss anything further with our experts at Freedman & Gopalan Solicitors, call us on 02 8999 9837.

The NSW Government is set to scrap lockout laws in Sydney’s Kings Cross in a bid to revitalise the night-time economy.

The controversial lockout laws, which were introduced in 2014 to quell alcohol fuelled violence, will be lifted as of 8th March 2021.

Venues in the area will soon be able to accept patrons after 1.30am and serve drinks in glasses, rather than plastic cups. The ‘last drinks’ rule will remain but will be moved to 3.30am.

The lockout laws were implemented by former Premier, Barry O’Farrell, after two Sydney teenagers were killed in one punch attacks. While violence in the area has since declined, a 2019 parliamentary inquiry found NSW may have been be foregoing up to $16 billion in economic activity as a result of the laws.

The controversial changes follow NSW Premier, Gladys Berejiklian’s, vow to revive Sydney’s “vibrant night-time economy.” Berejiklian told the Sydney Morning Herald that she expected the adjustments would allow Kings Cross “to continue to evolve into a vibrant lifestyle and cultural destination.”

While the Premier moved to ease restrictions in Sydney’s CBD and Oxford Street in January 2021, lockdown laws remained in Kings Cross on advice of law enforcement and health authorities.

Independent MP for Sydney, Alex Greenwich, welcomed the new conditions, telling the NewDaily that the area had changed since 2014 when lockout laws were introduced.

“The 24-hour beer barns are gone, and a more sophisticated dining, small bar, and entertainment offering is ready to thrive,” he said.

In an economy damaged by government restrictions and COVID constraints, these changes could well be the kiss of life for Kings Cross.

 

If you would like to discuss anything further with our experts at Freedman & Gopalan Solicitors, call us on 02 8999 9837.

In a historic Australia-first, the Federal Government has been ordered to pay compensation to 1,300 asylum seekers whose personal details were exposed online.

The ruling signifies a small step towards justice for the 10,000 asylum seekers whose confidential details were accidentally leaked by the Department of Home Affairs in 2014. In what has been dubbed one of the most severe privacy breaches in Australian history, the critical error identified every person held in detention on the mainland and on Christmas Island at the time, including children.

For many complainants, the publication of personal information such as their full names, citizenship, location and boat arrival details meant more than a mere privacy breach. It evoked a deep and genuine fear of identification and retribution by their countries of origin.

The monumental ruling was the result of a representative complaint made to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) in 2015. While the precise amount of compensation payable to the complainants remans undecided, Slater and Gordon and the Refugee Advice and Casework Service (RACS), who led the matter, told Lawyers Weekly they expect the claim is “likely to result in the largest compensation figure ever to be determined for a privacy claim in Australia.”

The unprecedented judgement reinforces the importance of the fundamental right to privacy and sends a strong message to organisations holding sensitive data that they must take their obligations seriously or face the consequences.

If you would like to discuss anything further with our experts at Freedman & Gopalan Solicitors, call us on 02 8999 9809.

Binding Financial Agreements - What You Need to Know - Freedman & Gopalan
When entering into binding financial agreements, its important to seek legal advice

Binding Financial Agreements

The Family Law Act 1975 authorises parties who are married or in a de facto relationship to create a legally binding agreement in relation to property, finances, superannuation and spousal maintenance to be applied if their relationship should end.

 What do Binding Financial Agreements Do?

A BFA allows parties to make an agreement in relation to their finances. Ultimately, a Binding Financial Agreement is intended to ensure parties do not have to enter court proceedings to work out property and financial matters. A BFA created by the two parties alone will not be legally binding. This is because a requirement for Binding Financial Agreements to come under the scope of the Family Law Act is that both parties must have signed the agreement after receiving independent advice about the nature and scope of the BFA. This must include independent legal and financial advice. For this reason, it is vital you speak to a family lawyer before creating a BFA. In addition, your lawyer can assist in the creation of the BFA to remove any possible loop-holes and ensure the BFA is contractually sound and fair to both parties.

 When can a Binding Financial Agreement be set aside?

A court can set aside a BFA for several reasons authorised by section 90K of the Family Law Act. These can include:

Courts are still reasonably strict when it comes to the legislative requirements for creating a BFA. This means that it is still imperative that you seek legal advice before entering into a BFA in order to ensure that it is binding should the unfortunate situation of a relationship breakdown ever arise.

If you are thinking of entering into a Binding Financial Agreement, need independent legal advice before signing one, or are considering separation or divorce, contact our family law team on 02 8917 8700 or fill out the enquiry box and we will get back to you ASAP.

 

Recent amendments to the Crimes Act have created four new offences in a bid to mitigate the impact of child sexual abuse.

Will the seals of Confessions made at Church remain unbroken?

The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse has recently passed recommendations to the government for various reforms to be made. These reforms include introduction of “Child Champions” to support compliance and their families through legal processes. The NSW government is set to increase the maximum penalty for persistent sexual abuse of a child and introduce four new offences to protect children against abuse.

Persistent Child Sexual Abuse:

Pursuant to s66EA of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), it is now an offence (punishable up to 25 years imprisonment) for a person to engage in conduct relating to a particular child that constitutes a sexual offence on 3 or more separate days during any period.

Four New Offences:

The government proposes to enact the following new offences as soon as possible;

  1. Failure to report child abuse – maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment;
  2. Failure to protect a child from abuse – maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment;
  3. Grooming of an adult to gain access to a child – maximum penalty of 6 years imprisonment;
  4. Sexual touching of a child aged 16/17 and under, under the special care of the offender – maximum penalty of 4 years imprisonment.

Additional reforms also include precluding courts from considering an offender's prior good character as mitigating factor during sentencing and requiring courts to apply current sentencing standards.

However, the main contention is whether the seal of Confession made at a Church will continue to remain unbroken?

Even before the Royal Commission had handed down their recommendation, Sydney Archbishop Anthony Fisher had made it clear on Easter Sunday 2018 that Catholic leaders would keep the lid on that seal regardless of what the law said. Accordingly, despite allowing the Church to keep the seal of confessions of child sexual abuse, the NSW government believes that the new reform package will be a significant step towards protecting child of the future from abuse. This will be a huge milestone as far as the area of child sexual abuse is concerned and will hopefully mitigate the crime that continues to be committed over decades.

If you are aware of any person who has abused a child in any manner or if you encounter a child who confesses to you or it is brought to your attention that he/she has been abused, report it to the police as a matter of urgency.

If you wish to discuss any matter matter or the legalities relating to child sex abuse in any manner please do not hesitate to contact Freedman &  Gopalan Solicitors on 02 8917 8700.

As the holiday season draws around the corner and whilst families are preparing and planning for an escape and considering cruises, there are a few details that they are unaware of. Medical Insurance/Coverage is a topic that is taken for granted and people assume that they are covered when they actually are not.

Most of us assume that our Medicare would cover any of the medical expenses incurred by us while holidaying in a cruise.  That is not precisely true and it depends upon the destination. Also, the cruise we pick for our holiday could be either within Australian ports or otherwise.

The Australian Government, Department of Human Services, provides Medicare for all Australian residents and certain categories of visitors (including migrants, permanent residents, and New Zealand citizens) and this gives them access to free and minimal cost medical and hospital services. Medicare normally covers:

Medicare coverage while on cruise can be slightly unpredictable. So, our advice to you before starting your vacation is:

If you have any questions regarding any further legal issues, please do not hesitate to contact us on (02) 8917 8700.

These days, when we hear the word ‘slavery’ our thoughts revert to historical times where slavery was common and slaves were distinct in their appearances and lack of wealth and resources. Thus, it might come as a surprise to learn that slavery is prevalent and strong in modern societies, including Australia, with approximately 45 million people affected across the world, according to the 2016 Global Slavery Index. Modern slavery can include forced labour, human trafficking, child exploitation and servitude. While there are anti-slavery laws in place, they are often out-dated and difficult to enforce. Many countries are now considering the implementation of a Modern Slavery Act to combat these human rights issues.

The UK have been one of the countries at the frontier of implementing modern slavery legislation. They introduced a bill in October 2013 with legislation being passed in March 2015. The UK Act has undergone several amendments since its introduction, one of which was the amendment to include a ‘supply chain clause’ which requires corporate businesses to publicise their efforts in stopping suppliers from using slave labour via a published annual statement. While there are currently no legal obligations or penalties to comply with these statements, it is expected that most corporate companies would endeavour to do so in order to keep their reputation intact.

Within Australia, approximately 4,500 people are experiencing some form of slavery with the most common cases involving the abuse and underpayment of foreign workers. Too often, foreign workers have been forced to labour in poor conditions on little or no pay with their travel documents taken away and threats of violence. Despite the fact that slavery provisions exist in the Commonwealth criminal code, Australia has seen only seven convictions arise between 2011 and 2016 out of 604 slavery-related investigations or referrals. It is believed that the introduction of a Modern Slavery Act could vastly improve this disparity and encourage more victims to come forward, as seen in the UK where there has been an increase of 63 percent in the number of victims coming forward since 2015. So far, no bill has yet been introduced to parliament however a parliamentary inquiry has been launched and it is likely that Australia’s stance will largely follow that of the UK’s.

One concern of the Modern Slavery Act is the turnover threshold that determines whether or not a business would need to publicise a statement. In the UK, this threshold is currently at the equivalent of AUD $58 million per annum. In August however, Justice Minister Michael Keenan announced that in Australia, the threshold should be AUD $100 million, decreasing the number of businesses who would be obliged under the Act. This was met with unsurprising criticism however all businesses will of course, still be bound by the criminal code of Australia.

Prostitution remains a key area of debate regarding slavery as while there are known cases of trafficking sex workers, there is varied support for criminalising prostitution. In Australia, cases of trafficking humans for prostitution and forced marriage occurs more commonly than people think with more than 60 cases being investigated in 2013-2014. There are fears however, following the trend of criminalising acts or substances, that criminalising prostitution will not stop it from occurring, and may further drive it underground which would be more detrimental. In 2014, the UK attempted to amend the Modern Slavery Bill however this was unsuccessful due to similar concerns.

Slavery in the modern world is not as obvious as it was in historical times and thus, more difficult to pinpoint and address. Australia has a dark history of slavery regarding Indigenous Australians and there are unfortunately still some instances of Indigenous slavery today. Slavery in Australia however, has unfortunately broadened considerably and these inhumane issues must be addressed. They may not be completely solved by the introduction of an act, however, evidence shows that it can vastly improve people’s awareness and willingness to act, a step forward in the right direction.

If you or someone you know has been a victim of slavery in Australia, or you have any questions in relation to modern slavery, please feel free to contact us on (02) 8917 8700.

Pursuant to the Dividing Fences Act 1991, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), the general principle states that the liability for costs in relation to erecting a fence is to be shared equally between the two adjoining owners of the property.  The costs should be reasonable and of a sufficient standard.  If an owner wishes to have a fence of a higher standard, then that owner is liable for the extra costs of the sufficient standard otherwise required.  Where the fencing work includes special requirements for enclosing a swimming pool, these extra expenses must be met by the owner of the property that contains the pool (pursuant to Swimming Pools Act 1992).

Under the Act, a dividing fence is defined to be a fence separating the land of adjoining owners.

The procedure outlined in the Act, requires a neighbour to contribute.  A fencing notice should in fact be issued by the other adjoining owner to his or her neighbour outlining the details of the proposed work.  Where the neighbour is a tenant, the fencing notice should be issued to the owner.  It can only be issued to the tenant where the unexpired term of tenancy is five years or more.

If the parties cannot agree on fencing work, you can either apply to the Local Court or NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) for an Order deciding the matter.  Pursuant to the relevant Sections outlined in the Dividing Fences Act 1991, where a fence has been damaged or destroyed, the owner can carry out the urgent work without first issuing a notice, if the circumstances make it impracticable.  However, the adjoining owner is still liable for half the costs.

If you and your neighbour can agree on the location, type of fence, the costs and the fencing work involved, we would strongly recommend that the terms of the agreement be put in writing.  Once written, kindly retain a signed copy of the same.  The agreement should cover all the relevant details including costs, design, height, type of material, colour, costs, position of the fence, arrangements or for the removal of any existing fence, and any other additional work that would be done in the future and if any additional work has to be done in the future, who would in fact cover those costs.

If you have any issues relating to fence and neighbour disputes, please do not hesitate to contact Freedman & Gopalan Solicitors on telephone: 02 8917 8700, to discuss the same.

Regardless of whether you’re a casual or full time worker, the last thing you want is to have your well-earnt superannuation disappearing as a result of account fees and default insurance. This is exactly what happened to Australian child actor Elijah Perris whose entire balance had essentially disappeared in less than a year.

While super fees are unavoidable, there are a few ways to ensure you keep as much of your super as possible. This is particularly important for people who have a low superannuation balance and high fees.

The PDS is the Product Disclosure Statement that each super provider is obligated to provide you. It includes all information regarding the fund including features, fees, benefits and risks. While this may sometimes be a large document, it is beneficial to read the PDS to avoid unexpected fees or disappearing balances.

Comparing different superannuation funds is extremely important as different providers may be more suitable for particular jobs or workers. Important things to compare are the fees that will be charged, the investment rate, and any default insurance payments. Some banks offer a free initial consultation to help customers plan the best ways to grow their super and maintain their finances.

Most super providers will offer various insurance covers along with their products. Common covers include income protection cover, total and permanent disability cover, and death cover. Providers will sometimes add these covers by default and thus, you must opt-out of the cover and its associated fees, if you do not believe you need it. It is usually also possible to decrease or increase the default insurance in accordance with your situation, however a level of life insurance should always be provided and maintained for worst case scenarios

It is very common, especially when you are just breaking into the workforce, to accumulate a number of different supers from various employers that you may have worked casually or part-time for. What many supers fail to notify their customers is that account fees will continue to be deducted from the super balance even after you stop working for your employer, meaning that you could be losing hard-earnt superannuation that could make a significant difference in your retirement. To avoid multiple fees, merge all your various super accounts from different providers into one. Providers are generally willing to help you combine your accounts if you are choosing to invest your super with them. Some banks are also able to advise and guide you in relation to combining supers.

Superannuation can be difficult to understand and while it may not appear to be relevant to you right now, it is important and beneficial for your retirement. Luckily for Elijah Perris, a complaint submitted by his mother was able to successfully recover the money that was deducted for income protection insurance which Elijah did not need. Elijah also had a relatively low super balance which may have affected the provider’s decision.

If you have any queries or issues regarding your superannuation, please do not hesitate to contact us on 8917 8700 or fill out the enquiry box and we will get back to you ASAP.

 

envelopeprinterphonemap-marker